- 5 A B C A The applications 12. There are three applications before me: (1) D B the plaintiffs’ summons dated 11 December 2015 for the C D continuation of the injunction order; E (2) the discharge summons for the discharge of the injunction order and the Mareva order; and F (3) G F the plaintiffs’ summons dated 21 June 2016 for an order that the plaintiffs do have leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim (“the ASC”) in the form attached to the H E G H summons with consequential directions and an order for costs of the application in favour of the 1st, 2nd, 5th and I I 6th defendants (“the amendment summons”). J K J 13. Although the proceedings have been served on all the K defendants, only the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th defendants have sought to defend L L these proceedings. M M 14. N O P Q st nd The 1 , 2 , 5 amendment summons. th and 6 th defendants did not oppose the That being so, on 28 June 2016 I made an order in the terms of the amendment summons. 15. As regards the discharge summons, Mr Clark, for the plaintiffs, reminded me of the observations of Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC in N O P Q Dormeuil Frères SA and another v Nicolian International (Textiles) Ltd R S T U V [1988] 1 WLR 1362 at p 1368: “ To discover whether an ex parte order has been improperly obtained, the court first has to consider the evidence as it was at the time of the application for the ex parte order and then a mass of evidence designed to demonstrate that that evidence was misleading or failed to make full disclosure. The real question R S T U V